Jump to content

Talk:Wookey Hole Caves/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Older topics

The Wookey Hole cave is located in the village of Wookey Hole. There is a nearby village called Wookey (referred to in the text) however following directions to Wookey is not a good way to find the cave, as many generations of tourists have found to their cost.

To follow up Martin's point, the old word for cave was something like Ocky (how it was spelt I have no idea) and indeed on old maps the village of Wookey Hole is identified as "Ocky Hole".

Possibly we need another article to cover the village of Wookey Hole as well as the Wookey Hole Cave.

John Rennie (ex resident of Wookey Hole!)

Is this in Great Britain?

Wells, Somerset, River Axe, Mendips, Glastonbury! Where else could it be?

The name "wookey" derives directly from the old Cornish (Celtic) word for a cave. (Martin Wheeler, Glastonbury, UK)

I can't confirm the 50,000 years ... only 2,000. --VampWillow 18:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Don't know if anyone can help me. When I was at school we used to sing a song about Wookey Hole. The song was about three unlucky men, treacle mines and custard lakes. Anyone know if the song was refering to the Wookey Hole caves? And if so, does anyone have the words to the song? Many thanks SooBear

Megalith infobox

Why use the megalith infobox? A cave isn't a megalith. Perhaps there is a more appropriate one, possibly even the UK places infobox for the village itself. Maybe another option is to split out Wookey Hole into two separate articles Wookey Hole (for the village) and Wookey Hole Caves. I'm happy to help if others agree this is a way to go. --Cheesy Mike 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I decided to be bold and just do it. So now there are two articles Wookey Hole and Wookey Hole Caves (i.e. this one). I have checked "what links here" and made changes to a number of articles so that they point correctly to either the caves or the village as appropriate. I have also modified Template:Mendip Hills. I'm sure I have missed a couple of links but I have done a reasonably thorough job. Now all it needs is a bit more info to be added to the village article. --Cheesy Mike 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

There is a conflict here with Jack Sheppard (cave diver) which claims : "Sheppard then constructed his own dry suit, incorporating an oxygen rebreathing system, and used this to make the world's first cave dive in Swildon's Hole on October 4, 1936." Derek Andrews (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Tim P who pointed out [this reference] I have now edited both articles and removed the dispute tags.— Rod talk 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheppard did not in fact dive at Wookey Hole as he was studying for an engineering degree in london. The two principle divers were Balcombe and Penelope Powell. The details of their exploration can be found in Balcombe's memoirs. Duncan Price (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Facts would seem to back you up. The reference quoted above doesn't specifically state that Sheppard took part in the 1935 expedition, only that his equipment was used. This article, which looks well written and well sourced, confirms that it was Balcombe and Powell who dived the cave in 1935. --TimTay (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
More confirmation here and here. Suggest we fix the article. --TimTay (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been to the Wookey Hole Caves twice and have heard the story of how the witch was turned to stone. There are different versions of the story but the one that was told by the Tour Guide explained that the monk blessed the water and splashed it at dark parts of the cave. A bucket was not mentioned. Additionlly, much further into the caves, it was revealed that the "Chamber Scenes" of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film) were filmed in the caves.James Emtage (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Witch of Wookey Hole

Well believe it or not, an unknown to Gerry Cottle, I am actually a decendant of the caves, and mill, which were owned by my great great grandmother, whom when sold them both, she then emigrated to Canada. I am also the recipient of the witches `WALKING STICK` it is a fabulous item, and has been passed down in line to have ended up with myself. The head of the witch is uncanny, and the nobbles along its stem are just unique. I did send an e-mail to wookey hole about a year ago, and recieved no reply, but I am thinking of dropping in one day and surprising them out of the blue, aswell as a few privelidged people there that day, as amongst all the clap trap items (dinosaurs etc) they have on show, apart from the real thing (the caves) I think I have an item of enormous curiosity! I shall be writing our families version of what really were the stories of the caves. gary.eastman@homecall.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boucher55 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What else is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria

What else do people think is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria?— Rod talk 15:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Contents

After a quick scan, I do have some comments about the information presented which I hope you will useful. Note that in general I commend the article, and these are 'picky' points an are not meant to be negative.

  • Information Box: There is a lot of useful information missing from the Cave Infobox which could be presented. These include length, altitude, vertical range, show cave details etc.
  • I've looked at Template:Infobox Cave which has lots of parameters not used on this article, but some are duplicated by other functions eg coords, Can you point me to a site with clear details for the others you mention. I'm also not sure what else should be included re the show cave - the template just says give date it opened (which was 1927).— Rod talk 14:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • ref #1 in the infobox uses template 'sfn|mcra' which seems to be a self reference. I'm not sure why this is being used rather than a standard named reference, or what the intention was, so I am leaving well alone, but my guess is that it should link to [1], which has a different depth than below.--Derek Andrews (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Depth: The depth is considerably deeper than 54 metres - the end is actually quite a way below sea level ( which is interesting in its own right).
  • Ghost: I find the reference to the 'ghost' somewhat distasteful in that we are talking about two relatively recent deaths. Moreover, the reference given is a very dubious website. The expression 'potholer' is also inappropriate - 'caver' or 'cave diver' would be better,
  • Wookey 24: I think the explorations by Geoff Yeadon and Oliver Statham which reached Chamber 24 are worthy of inclusion. After all, Chamber 24 is the most significant section of 'dry' passage outside the show cave.
  • Catchment area More could be made of the discussion of the cave catchment area, and the caves associated with it. All we have at the moment is the rather clumsy "Before emerging at Wookey Hole the water enters underground streams and passes through other caves such as Swildon's Hole and St Cuthbert's Swallet." This is a little misleading - various streams sink into the limestone plateau and run through caves such as Swildon's Hole, to eventually unite and resurge as the River Axe at Wookey Hole.
  • I'm by no means an expert on the caves of Mendip, but to quote Mendip Underground (David Irwin & Anthony Knibbs, 1977) on page 162: "The Wookey Hole catchment area includes the major caves of Swildon's Hole, Eastwater Cavern, and St Cuthbert's Swallet amongst many active feeders in the Priddy area two miles to the north". Since then, of course, other caves may have been discovered, and it is always difficult to make a definitive statement about "minor" and "major" caves, so it is better not to try to be all-inclusive. Langcliffe (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • OK I've added Eastwater Cavern to the lead, but noticed it wasn't in the main body so I've also added it to the geology section. I don't have access to the 1977 edition of Mendip Underground for which you've given the page no - could you add the full citation?— Rod talk 15:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There are several swallets marked on the OS map that don't seem to be linked to known caves. My guess is that those that they have traced must have fairly direct routes to WHC or else they would get so diluted as to be untraceable. As for minor caves, there is this one [2] which I have been down a little way; entrance is in my cousin's driveway.--Derek Andrews (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
[3] "Hydrographic Feeds: Cross; Easter; Eastwater; Hillgrove; Priddy Green; Rock Shelter; Rookery Farm; St. Cuthbert's; Swildon's Hole"

Langcliffe (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately I am rather busy with my own projects at the moment, and I haven't the necessary time to devote to this. I was simply responding to your request for suggestions after a quick scan of the article. Langcliffe (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Tourism contains the odd sentence "Management buyout sale in 1989" which needs clarification and referencing.--Derek Andrews (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
School Entrance: I've been trying to find a source for the name "School Entrance" (which I hadn't heard of) and failed. Are you referring to the artifical entrance or the resurgence entrance (via diving)? As far as I know there are three entrances, one of which is artifical.
  • My guess would be that the show cave has one entrance for general admission and one for school parties, but I've not been able to find anything specific.— Rod talk 14:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Definitely not. The Show Cave is effectively a through trip, going in through the traditional entrance and emerging from the artifical entrance. As I say, I have personally never heard of School Entrance (although being stuck in the wilds of Yorkshire, that's probably not surprising). In addition to those two entrances, there is the third, currently accessible only by divers as the dam has raised internal water levels by 2 metres, which is the resurgence. Langcliffe (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Tunnel: There is little about the development of the show cave to include Chambers 7, 8 and 9 and the exit. Langcliffe (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

singular or plural - I find it rather unsettling that there are switches between singular and plural forms of 'cave'. I know that the tourist attraction uses plural. Also that there other minor caves in the area, though I'm not sure whether they are part of the tourist attraction. I'm not sure what to suggest. --Derek Andrews (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I believe (although I may be wrong) that it is traditionally known as Wookey Hole, but once the community of Wookey Hole developed, it often had 'Cave' added for clarification. Caving literature (e.g. Farr, The Darkness Beckons) normally refer to it just as 'Wookey Hole'. The 'Caves' with plural is associated with the tourist attraction (it used to be owned by Wookey Holes Caves Ltd.). Personally, I would prefer to see the article called "Wookey Hole", but the article on the village has clobbered that. My second choice is 'Wookey Hole Cave' - but then I regard it more significant as a geological / geomorphological feature than I do a tourist attraction. Langcliffe (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The guidance at Wikipedia:Article titles suggests to go with what most reliable sources use & the most "Common Name". I think the village should stay at Wookey Hole to differentiate it from the nearby Wookey. I would suggest more people are likely to search for it as a show cave than as a caving venue, but I could live with either the singular or plural.— Rod talk 22:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • As an aside: the other local ones are Hyena Cave, Badger Hole & Rhinocerous Hole - which are all covered in this article (probably not notable enough for separate articles), but are not features of the tourist attraction.— Rod talk 22:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I always new it as Wookey Hole Caves. Not disputing that. I was thinking that maybe it was layman language for the multiple chambers that you visit on the tour. I just think it may need explanation or very careful use in the text.--Derek Andrews (talk) 7:47 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • I just rewrote a part of the lead. I tried to better explain the relationship between the upper caves where the waters enter, and WHC where it leaves, and introduce a few other links to explain different types of cave. I hope there is nothing wrong here - I noticed that none of the potholes mentioned use the the term pit cave. It may still need tweaking: is it referred to at the R.Axe while it is still subteranean?--Derek Andrews (talk) 7:47 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • Unfortunately, this edit has not helped and is misleading. Also, the caves you mentioned are not pit caves.
  • OK. Is there a better term to use then? I was just trying to find terms that would help distinguish between caves that enter at the top and side of a hill. I will leave it until you have time to do your rewrite.--Derek Andrews (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is a difficult one - Commercial manufacture ceased in 2008, however to the best of my knowledge visitors can still make paper, using waters from the Axe (I have video of my kids doing it only a couple of years ago) so the present tense in the lead is still true and the statement in "Tourism" saying production ceased in 2008. I have therefore added "commercial" - does this help?— Rod talk 15:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Geology. I find the first paragraph and a half to be rather unnecessary. Do we really need to know all that stuff? Would it be sufficient to use a hatnote to link to Mendip_Hills#Geology and say something like the caves are in carboniferous limestone? Also allogenic and autogenic need explaining. Allogenic and autogenic don't do it. Maybe the phrase after allogenic is the explanation. Indeed, do we really need to use these technical terms at all? Also, with the three feeding caves mentioned here, should we simplify the lead? --Derek Andrews (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • As said elsewhere, I intend to rewrite the geology section (one of the most interesting thing about Wookey Hole is that a lot of it is not formed in Carboniferous limestone, but in Triassic dolomitic conglomerate), and add a description of the caves in the fullness of time. I have now rephrased the sentence in the hydrology section. Langcliffe (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Having been alerted to the discussion by RodW, I'd taken a look at the geology section and would agree that there is too much there that is not directly relevant to the subject. A good start would be to simply remove the first two paragraphs which broadly deal with the geology of the Mendip Hills - indeed that material is to be found at that page. cheers Geopersona (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have completed my rewrite of the geology section, and it is now available for tearing apart. In my humble opinion the article now requires a preceding major section describing the caves before it is ready for GA review. I will endeavour to write that in the next few days. Langcliffe (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've wikilinked strata. There are just a couple of minor bits which maybe could do with a little clarification (for non experts like me) eg "shallow loops linking low bedding chambers" and "phreatic solutional enlargement of fractured rifts".— Rod talk 22:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've now closed the GA nomination as a "procedural fail". When we are ready we can renominate as GA2. What do you think is needed in the proposed section describing the caves?— Rod talk 20:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a description of the system 2/3rds completed. Unfortunately, I'm off to Glen Coe for a week, so must abandon it for a few days. Langcliffe (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see a graphic to better explain the sumps and chambers and waterlevels. I have asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions about the legality of having [4] and/or [5] redrawn. These really helped me visualize better what the text was talking about. --Derek Andrews (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Description Thanks Langcliffe for adding the description. I've added some wikilinks as these are now the first occurrences of these terms (I will look at any duplicate links lower down the article). I removed a couple of peacock terms "magnificent" and "celebrated" - if these are to be used we need to say who has described them as such. I am unfamiliar with the term "airbells" and think this needs clarifying or linking. There are also a lot of numbers - both of chambers and distances/depths are these all needed? Also this new section means that Hydrology and geology is lower down (below the infobox on my screen) so could have an additional picture added if there were a suitable one available - or do we wait and see if the graphic Derek Andrews has requested is created?— Rod talk 19:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that I have got the length of the description about right. After all, the two miles of passage is what makes the cave. However, having done what I promised to do, I will now leave it in your capable hands to do what you will. An air bell, incidentally, is an enclosed air space between the water surface and the roof of a cave. Langcliffe (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Rod, just to clarify the status of the graphic. I got an ok from Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Redrawing_copyrighted_diagrams saying "You could, but the font and arrangement of text and scales and legend could be different. The small stories there could be explained in a different way. Different colours and exact shape could differ." I haven't progressed this to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab as I didn't want to waste their time if it was not needed. What is your opinion? I will have a read of the article this evening and see what I think following Langcliffe's latest edits.--Derek Andrews (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it could be useful although the map and cross section show different things to my mind. I think a version of the map could be useful in helping understand the numbers/depths etc of the new description section and we now have space for it. There isn't really anything suitable in the commons cat. If you could ask at Graphics Lab whether someone would be willing to take it on that would be good.— Rod talk 20:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree that the map is prime. From the cross-section I think it would be useful to show the three strata of rock. Maybe also the gradient of the waterlevel, although I rather suspect that must change considerably with rainfall conditions. Just thinking about being down there makes me feel ill :-) --Derek Andrews (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the three rock formations, as the Carboniferous limestone is not differentiated in the text. Differentiating the conglomerate and the limestone would be useful. There is very little water gradient, across the length of the explored passage, as the vast majority of the cave is underwater, and there is only one section where there is a positive gradient (Wookey 24). Water levels won't change very much as the explored passages have a high capacity. Langcliffe (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Another look

I'm starting a new sub-section here just to make editing easier. Here are a bunch of items that may need addressing.

  • Capitalisation there seems to be an inconsistency in capitalization of rock types. I haven't yet looked for guidance in MOS or elsewhere, but Carboniferous limestone seems to suggest that it should be Carboniferous Limestone. Does this also apply to limestone hills for example and Dolomitic conglomerate?
  • The response I got from Odysseus was "Those examples are different: Carboniferous needs the capital because it’s the proper name of the geological period in which the limestone was deposited, but dolomitic is derived from the common noun dolomite, referring to the mineral content of the conglomerate, so should not be capitalized."— Rod talk 20:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I confess I hadn’t looked at the article before commenting there … I should point out that some terms appearing here, Devonian Old Red Sandstone e.g., are the names of identified strata, so should remain fully capitalized. But generic rock types should not: despite the apparent inconsistency, it would be correct to describe the DORS as “a Devonian sandstone formation“.—Odysseus1479 21:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It should be Carboniferous limestone, as we are referring to a type of rock in a specific geological period. It happens to be part of the Carboniferous Limestone Supergroup, but that is neither here nor there. Langcliffe (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed: in case my initial comment above appears to support capitalizing limestone, I didn’t intend it to.—Odysseus1479 23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Dolomitic conglomerate - this is really more a problem of there not being a specific article about this. Dolomite is not terribly helpful in as much as it says straight away that it might refer to two different things. My guess is that it is the sedimentary carbonate form we have here. Conglomerate is not so bad, but it would be useful to know that the matrix is in this instance. In the description section, I found it awkward that the dolomitic conglomerate is not mentioned until we move away from it. This might be the place to explain more full what it is, and how it impacts the cave structure and what visitors might see there.
  • I suspect that the "Dolomitic" refers to the cement. The matrix is limestone scree. All the literature describes it as Domolmitic Conglomerate, so I think that should suffice. Langcliffe (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • SSSI The SSSI citation says this is the "finest example in Britain of a cave formed by deep phreatic activity", so I think we need to make more of this fact in the lead and the body. Also maybe the length of the passages might be more important (I think Langcliffe mentioned this in a comment somewhere), and even the depth. Also there is no mention that I can see stating the biological significance.
  • Witch Is the reference to this as a rock outcrop correct? I thought it was a stalgmite, though I can see how it might be considered one and the same thing.
It was in the lead. As we seem to be in agreement that it is a stalagmite I changed it, but I'm not altogether happy with the phrasing.--Derek Andrews (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Wookey 24 there is mention of the river passage being "and 2 metres". I would hazard a guess this is width, but it might be depth?
  • History There is mention of a controversy over the catchment area SSSI. Is there any information about how this turned out? It kind of leaves the reader with a cliff-hanger.
  • After a brief look at the reference given, I see that the whole of page 125 and half of page 126 describes the controversy in detail. However, I didn't write the section, and have no interest in expanding it. Langcliffe (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Archaeology What is Hell's ladder?
  • Exploration Can we identify the lake / chamber in the photo caption?
OK, this [6] confirms chamber 1 so I fixed the caption. Should also note that there is is similar picture of a boat in a lake further on in the article? Do we want that too?--Derek Andrews (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • New witch The selection of a new witch in 2009 doesn't make any sense to me.
  • I think this was a publicity stunt when people turned up for "interview" for the "job" in costume & it got reported in the papers & TV.— Rod talk 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Do people think all these issues have been resolved? What else do people think is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria?— Rod talk 17:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wookey Hole Caves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wookey Hole Caves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Wookey Hole Caves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wookey_Hole_Caves/Archive_1&oldid=1090586166"